What do you think it would really be like? For at least a certain amount of atheists, it would go something like this.

As scientific advancement increases, along with the modern concept of Separation OfChurch And State, the citizens of the world will become more educated which will gradually lead to less and less need for religion. Eventually, without any extreme measures resulting in persecution, religion will eventually disappear. The Bible will remain a book of historical value, because as Richard Dawkins put it, people will read it and texts particularly in the O.T. will push people away from Christianity (I don't know what he does with the conversions to Christianity involving reading the entire book). My guess is that RD also understands that the prohibition of the Bible creates mass interest in the Bible as witnessed in communist and former communist countries. And of course when this Utopia comes into existence, everyone will live (relatively) happily ever after.

Really? Assuming this is the general idea (correct me if it isn't), there's a huge problem. Atheists, like anyone else, do not all think alike. I admit, there's some commonalities, but there's no guarantee even those will remain for any given length of time.

Let's consider these words by Richard Dawkins:

But at this point he turns it back around again. I try to clarify my own views to him. "You would feel deprived if there weren"t any churches?" he asks. "Yes," I respond. He mulls this before replying. "I would feel deprived in the same spirit of the English cricket match that I mentioned, that is close to my heart. Yes, I would feel a loss there. I would feel an aesthetic loss. I would miss church bells, that kind of thing."

And what about the fear of losing the tradition? "Yes. I sort of understand that. I certainly would absolutely never do what some of my American colleagues do and object to religious symbols being used, putting crosses up in the public square and things like that, I don"t fret about that at all, I"m quite happy about that. But I think I share your Anglican nostalgia, especially when you look at the competition."

This is particularly interesting since he's a member of the Freedom From ReligionFoundation who does exactly what he is protesting (his colleagues he was referring to?).

So Dawkins apparently does have some insight to a religion-free-society not being quite the utopia he would hope for. At least in regards to a good possibility that cultural Anglicism may not be tolerated.

One of the commonalities among modern American atheists, although they throw out the term religion loosely, is to exclude eastern religion like Buddhism from religion-free-sentiment. However, who's to say that commonality would remain? While many American atheists may not feel sentimental regret for the removal of Christian symbolism in America (like Dawkins would for the Anglican church), I would say many of them (particularly in my area) would be horrified at the removal of Asian art museums which contain eastern religious symbols, Thai Restaurants which often have Buddhist deity symbols, Indian restaurants with their Hindu symbols, etc.? Who's to say the upcoming generation of atheists won't consider their atheist forefathers like Richard Dawkins, Dan Barker, etc. wimps for compromising with some religions like Buddhism, or having sentimental feelings for Christian culture, etc.? What makes one think atheists are all just going to think in harmonious unison?

At 11/11/2014 12:58:06 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:What do you think it would really be like? For at least a certain amount of atheists, it would go something like this.

As scientific advancement increases, along with the modern concept of Separation OfChurch And State, the citizens of the world will become more educated which will gradually lead to less and less need for religion. Eventually, without any extreme measures resulting in persecution, religion will eventually disappear. The Bible will remain a book of historical value, because as Richard Dawkins put it, people will read it and texts particularly in the O.T. will push people away from Christianity (I don't know what he does with the conversions to Christianity involving reading the entire book). My guess is that RD also understands that the prohibition of the Bible creates mass interest in the Bible as witnessed in communist and former communist countries. And of course when this Utopia comes into existence, everyone will live (relatively) happily ever after.

Really? Assuming this is the general idea (correct me if it isn't), there's a huge problem. Atheists, like anyone else, do not all think alike. I admit, there's some commonalities, but there's no guarantee even those will remain for any given length of time.

Let's consider these words by Richard Dawkins:

But at this point he turns it back around again. I try to clarify my own views to him. "You would feel deprived if there weren"t any churches?" he asks. "Yes," I respond. He mulls this before replying. "I would feel deprived in the same spirit of the English cricket match that I mentioned, that is close to my heart. Yes, I would feel a loss there. I would feel an aesthetic loss. I would miss church bells, that kind of thing."

And what about the fear of losing the tradition? "Yes. I sort of understand that. I certainly would absolutely never do what some of my American colleagues do and object to religious symbols being used, putting crosses up in the public square and things like that, I don"t fret about that at all, I"m quite happy about that. But I think I share your Anglican nostalgia, especially when you look at the competition."

This is particularly interesting since he's a member of the Freedom From ReligionFoundation who does exactly what he is protesting (his colleagues he was referring to?).

So Dawkins apparently does have some insight to a religion-free-society not being quite the utopia he would hope for. At least in regards to a good possibility that cultural Anglicism may not be tolerated.

One of the commonalities among modern American atheists, although they throw out the term religion loosely, is to exclude eastern religion like Buddhism from religion-free-sentiment. However, who's to say that commonality would remain? While many American atheists may not feel sentimental regret for the removal of Christian symbolism in America (like Dawkins would for the Anglican church), I would say many of them (particularly in my area) would be horrified at the removal of Asian art museums which contain eastern religious symbols, Thai Restaurants which often have Buddhist deity symbols, Indian restaurants with their Hindu symbols, etc.? Who's to say the upcoming generation of atheists won't consider their atheist forefathers like Richard Dawkins, Dan Barker, etc. wimps for compromising with some religions like Buddhism, or having sentimental feelings for Christian culture, etc.? What makes one think atheists are all just going to think in harmonious unison?

Consider the old adage, "be careful what you ask for".

I don't see spirituality going away to usher in some kind of united atheism. Religious faith will become more agnostic in the future before it dissolves. A gradual change.

I do believe that scientific advancement and free thinking will become the focus rather than looking for the meaning of life in archaic scrolls.

This could never be a world without meaning or love, because of us. It would just make more sense without the dogma.

A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."

No matter what beliefs people hold one thing is for certain. It's human nature to seek out our own self interests. Some of these interests will be good and others will be evil. I also wouldn't consider religiosity as equivalent with belief in God. It's true that the religious believe in God, but the decline of religiosity doesn't necessarily mean a decline in the belief of God.

At 11/11/2014 12:58:06 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:What do you think it would really be like? For at least a certain amount of atheists, it would go something like this.

As scientific advancement increases, along with the modern concept of Separation OfChurch And State, the citizens of the world will become more educated which will gradually lead to less and less need for religion. Eventually, without any extreme measures resulting in persecution, religion will eventually disappear. The Bible will remain a book of historical value, because as Richard Dawkins put it, people will read it and texts particularly in the O.T. will push people away from Christianity (I don't know what he does with the conversions to Christianity involving reading the entire book). My guess is that RD also understands that the prohibition of the Bible creates mass interest in the Bible as witnessed in communist and former communist countries. And of course when this Utopia comes into existence, everyone will live (relatively) happily ever after.

Really? Assuming this is the general idea (correct me if it isn't), there's a huge problem. Atheists, like anyone else, do not all think alike. I admit, there's some commonalities, but there's no guarantee even those will remain for any given length of time.

Let's consider these words by Richard Dawkins:

But at this point he turns it back around again. I try to clarify my own views to him. "You would feel deprived if there weren"t any churches?" he asks. "Yes," I respond. He mulls this before replying. "I would feel deprived in the same spirit of the English cricket match that I mentioned, that is close to my heart. Yes, I would feel a loss there. I would feel an aesthetic loss. I would miss church bells, that kind of thing."

And what about the fear of losing the tradition? "Yes. I sort of understand that. I certainly would absolutely never do what some of my American colleagues do and object to religious symbols being used, putting crosses up in the public square and things like that, I don"t fret about that at all, I"m quite happy about that. But I think I share your Anglican nostalgia, especially when you look at the competition."

This is particularly interesting since he's a member of the Freedom From ReligionFoundation who does exactly what he is protesting (his colleagues he was referring to?).

So Dawkins apparently does have some insight to a religion-free-society not being quite the utopia he would hope for. At least in regards to a good possibility that cultural Anglicism may not be tolerated.

One of the commonalities among modern American atheists, although they throw out the term religion loosely, is to exclude eastern religion like Buddhism from religion-free-sentiment. However, who's to say that commonality would remain? While many American atheists may not feel sentimental regret for the removal of Christian symbolism in America (like Dawkins would for the Anglican church), I would say many of them (particularly in my area) would be horrified at the removal of Asian art museums which contain eastern religious symbols, Thai Restaurants which often have Buddhist deity symbols, Indian restaurants with their Hindu symbols, etc.? Who's to say the upcoming generation of atheists won't consider their atheist forefathers like Richard Dawkins, Dan Barker, etc. wimps for compromising with some religions like Buddhism, or having sentimental feelings for Christian culture, etc.? What makes one think atheists are all just going to think in harmonious unison?

Consider the old adage, "be careful what you ask for".

I'm unaware of any atheists who object to religious symbols on private property. That includes restaurants. I'm also unaware of any atheists who object to religious symbols as historical or artistic artifacts. You can speculate about future atheists all you want, but no one is even hinting at the removal of symbols in the context of what you're talking about. Dawkins's comment about symbols on public property, and missing churches, pretty much amounts to the artistic/historic element of them. He says as much saying he'd miss the aesthetics of them. Big religion dumps a lot of money into big, beautiful architecture. No atheist disputes that, though we might each have some ideas about what that money could have been better spent on.

I doubt very much that any atheists have ideas of a religion-free utopia being completely bereft of religious symbols. At least for me that "utopia" is one in which the overall rationality of humanity is increased, if such a thing could be quantified. In my religion-free utopia, if a child dies of a disease, it's because a treatment does not yet exist rather than because the parents think the great Woo will save him/her. And if that treatment doesn't exist, it's because it just hasn't been developed rather than that it was stymied by superstitious beliefs. In my utopia, untold billions of dollars are spent helping people rather than giving glory to a myth and that myth's representatives. In my utopia, confronting bigotry never involves convincing someone that his/her boogeyman doesn't really care about other people's race, gender, sexuality, or creed.

I don't see spirituality going away to usher in some kind of united atheism. Religious faith will become more agnostic in the future before it dissolves. A gradual change.

The whole idea behind agnosticism is not knowing whether or not there is a God. The one thing that would continue to kill either a united atheist/agnostic society would entail God's continual personal revelation to individuals. In short, a religion-free utopia would be impossible.

I do believe that scientific advancement and free thinking will become the focus rather than looking for the meaning of life in archaic scrolls.

At what point? We can travel half-way across the world within a day. Communicate with people on the other side of the globe in a matter of seconds. And thrives at the same level it always has. What magical element of advancement is going to usher in a religion-free world?

This could never be a world without meaning or love, because of us. It would just make more sense without the dogma.

I don't see spirituality going away to usher in some kind of united atheism. Religious faith will become more agnostic in the future before it dissolves. A gradual change.

The whole idea behind agnosticism is not knowing whether or not there is a God. The one thing that would continue to kill either a united atheist/agnostic society would entail God's continual personal revelation to individuals. In short, a religion-free utopia would be impossible.

The only people I've witnessed who have had personal revelations with God are either capitalizing on it or are stark raving mad. We have a saint among us here.

I do believe that scientific advancement and free thinking will become the focus rather than looking for the meaning of life in archaic scrolls.

At what point? We can travel half-way across the world within a day. Communicate with people on the other side of the globe in a matter of seconds. And thrives at the same level it always has. What magical element of advancement is going to usher in a religion-free world?

Eventually we will grow out of religion, yes.

This could never be a world without meaning or love, because of us. It would just make more sense without the dogma.

I'm not sure what you mean. Can you expound on this a bit?

What I mean is that the lack of religion will not affect the good in people.

A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."

At 11/11/2014 1:26:35 PM, Benshapiro wrote:No matter what beliefs people hold one thing is for certain. It's human nature to seek out our own self interests. Some of these interests will be good and others will be evil. I also wouldn't consider religiosity as equivalent with belief in God. It's true that the religious believe in God, but the decline of religiosity doesn't necessarily mean a decline in the belief of God.

That's true, but we don't really know how a future generation of atheists would respond to even a church-platonic belief in God. Just the belief alone, or the proclamation thereof could still be considered religion (as was/is the case in China).

At 11/11/2014 12:58:06 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:What do you think it would really be like? For at least a certain amount of atheists, it would go something like this.

As scientific advancement increases, along with the modern concept of Separation OfChurch And State, the citizens of the world will become more educated which will gradually lead to less and less need for religion. Eventually, without any extreme measures resulting in persecution, religion will eventually disappear. The Bible will remain a book of historical value, because as Richard Dawkins put it, people will read it and texts particularly in the O.T. will push people away from Christianity (I don't know what he does with the conversions to Christianity involving reading the entire book). My guess is that RD also understands that the prohibition of the Bible creates mass interest in the Bible as witnessed in communist and former communist countries. And of course when this Utopia comes into existence, everyone will live (relatively) happily ever after.

Really? Assuming this is the general idea (correct me if it isn't), there's a huge problem. Atheists, like anyone else, do not all think alike. I admit, there's some commonalities, but there's no guarantee even those will remain for any given length of time.

Let's consider these words by Richard Dawkins:

But at this point he turns it back around again. I try to clarify my own views to him. "You would feel deprived if there weren"t any churches?" he asks. "Yes," I respond. He mulls this before replying. "I would feel deprived in the same spirit of the English cricket match that I mentioned, that is close to my heart. Yes, I would feel a loss there. I would feel an aesthetic loss. I would miss church bells, that kind of thing."

And what about the fear of losing the tradition? "Yes. I sort of understand that. I certainly would absolutely never do what some of my American colleagues do and object to religious symbols being used, putting crosses up in the public square and things like that, I don"t fret about that at all, I"m quite happy about that. But I think I share your Anglican nostalgia, especially when you look at the competition."

This is particularly interesting since he's a member of the Freedom From ReligionFoundation who does exactly what he is protesting (his colleagues he was referring to?).

So Dawkins apparently does have some insight to a religion-free-society not being quite the utopia he would hope for. At least in regards to a good possibility that cultural Anglicism may not be tolerated.

One of the commonalities among modern American atheists, although they throw out the term religion loosely, is to exclude eastern religion like Buddhism from religion-free-sentiment. However, who's to say that commonality would remain? While many American atheists may not feel sentimental regret for the removal of Christian symbolism in America (like Dawkins would for the Anglican church), I would say many of them (particularly in my area) would be horrified at the removal of Asian art museums which contain eastern religious symbols, Thai Restaurants which often have Buddhist deity symbols, Indian restaurants with their Hindu symbols, etc.? Who's to say the upcoming generation of atheists won't consider their atheist forefathers like Richard Dawkins, Dan Barker, etc. wimps for compromising with some religions like Buddhism, or having sentimental feelings for Christian culture, etc.? What makes one think atheists are all just going to think in harmonious unison?

I'm unaware of any atheists who object to religious symbols on private property. That includes restaurants. I'm also unaware of any atheists who object to religious symbols as historical or artistic artifacts. You can speculate about future atheists all you want, but no one is even hinting at the removal of symbols in the context of what you're talking about. Dawkins's comment about symbols on public property, and missing churches, pretty much amounts to the artistic/historic element of them. He says as much saying he'd miss the aesthetics of them. Big religion dumps a lot of money into big, beautiful architecture. No atheist disputes that, though we might each have some ideas about what that money could have been better spent on.

We have to consider that Richard Dawkins is a member of quite possibly the biggest, most active atheist organization in the western world. He's making a very clear claim that he would never do what he sees his American colleagues do, which is obviously referencing American atheist activists. I think he knows far more about them than we do. He probably wouldn't make the type of comment he did if high profile atheist activists merely envisioned removal of religious icons on public property. You're average atheist may not see beyond that scope, but I think groups like the FFRF envision pushing beyond that scope.

Consider the case of the demand that a statue of Jesus on a Montana ski resort be removed, which is a case involving the FFRF. One has to not only go skiing to see this statue, they have to go to a very specific ski resort. However, they have to look at crosses, statues of Jesus, Mary, Saints right in their own neighborhoods. If they get sick seeing a monumental cross at Ground Zero, they must break out into cold sweats just driving through States like Virginia.

Plus, we have to consider the implications made that the religious are intolerant. Atheists activists may not go after religious symbolism on private due to a binding clause they currently feel the need to respect originating from the founding fathers. For example, they maintain that a Christian who owns a bakery open to the public is practicing discrimination if they refuse to produce a cake for a gay wedding. However, they wouldn't object if this bakery was on church grounds. Or, they don't object to a church minister refusing to marry a gay couple because of the side of the alleged separation wall between church and State they are on. The question is, is this because it's no longer discrimination if this is on church property (feel free to answer by the way). And if it still is discrimination, then it would obviously be tolerated discrimination based on a binding historic technicality. Do you really think they would refrain from attempting to chip away at that technicality?

Seriously!

I doubt very much that any atheists have ideas of a religion-free utopia being completely bereft of religious symbols. At least for me that "utopia" is one in which the overall rationality of humanity is increased, if such a thing could be quantified. In my religion-free utopia, if a child dies of a disease, it's because a treatment does not yet exist rather than because the parents think the great Woo will save him/her. And if that treatment doesn't exist, it's because it just hasn't been developed rather than that it was stymied by superstitious beliefs. In my utopia, untold billions of dollars are spent helping people rather than giving glory to a myth and that myth's representatives. In my utopia, confronting bigotry never involves convincing someone that his/her boogeyman doesn't really care about other people's race, gender, sexuality, or creed.

As far as your opening statement of your paragraph, you might reconsider that. If a statue of Jesus on a remote ski resort is worth taking to court, why would you be so sure?

Also comments in relation to parents relying on a deity to heal their child that they could have taken to a hospital is exactly the types of comments that are made with any real thought. There have been remote cases where a parent(s) refused medical help resulting in the death of an infant. And yes, it would be wonderful if this never happens again. But often times these remote instances are casually attached to religion with the intent of vilifying religion as a whole

I'm unaware of any atheists who object to religious symbols on private property. That includes restaurants. I'm also unaware of any atheists who object to religious symbols as historical or artistic artifacts. You can speculate about future atheists all you want, but no one is even hinting at the removal of symbols in the context of what you're talking about. Dawkins's comment about symbols on public property, and missing churches, pretty much amounts to the artistic/historic element of them. He says as much saying he'd miss the aesthetics of them. Big religion dumps a lot of money into big, beautiful architecture. No atheist disputes that, though we might each have some ideas about what that money could have been better spent on.

We have to consider that Richard Dawkins is a member of quite possibly the biggest, most active atheist organization in the western world. He's making a very clear claim that he would never do what he sees his American colleagues do, which is obviously referencing American atheist activists. I think he knows far more about them than we do. He probably wouldn't make the type of comment he did if high profile atheist activists merely envisioned removal of religious icons on public property. You're average atheist may not see beyond that scope, but I think groups like the FFRF envision pushing beyond that scope.

Consider the case of the demand that a statue of Jesus on a Montana ski resort be removed, which is a case involving the FFRF. One has to not only go skiing to see this statue, they have to go to a very specific ski resort. However, they have to look at crosses, statues of Jesus, Mary, Saints right in their own neighborhoods. If they get sick seeing a monumental cross at Ground Zero, they must break out into cold sweats just driving through States like Virginia.

You're still talking about public property, so I'm not sure why you're mentioning this stuff. Still no indication that atheists would ever go after symbols on private property. Furthermore, the symbols don't upset us. No atheist "get[s] sick" seeing a monumental cross at Ground Zero or any other religion symbol. What bothers us is the exclusivity of it. People lose their crap at the very idea of a mosque near Ground Zero, but a cross doesn't even get a blink. You can either allow all or none, and we think none makes more sense. Otherwise you potentially wind up with cluttered public areas that just become dumping grounds for everyone's pet deity.

Plus, we have to consider the implications made that the religious are intolerant. Atheists activists may not go after religious symbolism on private due to a binding clause they currently feel the need to respect originating from the founding fathers. For example, they maintain that a Christian who owns a bakery open to the public is practicing discrimination if they refuse to produce a cake for a gay wedding. However, they wouldn't object if this bakery was on church grounds. Or, they don't object to a church minister refusing to marry a gay couple because of the side of the alleged separation wall between church and State they are on. The question is, is this because it's no longer discrimination if this is on church property (feel free to answer by the way). And if it still is discrimination, then it would obviously be tolerated discrimination based on a binding historic technicality. Do you really think they would refrain from attempting to chip away at that technicality?

Seriously!

Yes, I do think they'd refrain. It isn't just some "technicality." Private versus public is not just a "technicality." By the way, the idea that a business owner can't discriminate has absolutely nothing to do with atheism, so I don't know why you bring it up.

I doubt very much that any atheists have ideas of a religion-free utopia being completely bereft of religious symbols. At least for me that "utopia" is one in which the overall rationality of humanity is increased, if such a thing could be quantified. In my religion-free utopia, if a child dies of a disease, it's because a treatment does not yet exist rather than because the parents think the great Woo will save him/her. And if that treatment doesn't exist, it's because it just hasn't been developed rather than that it was stymied by superstitious beliefs. In my utopia, untold billions of dollars are spent helping people rather than giving glory to a myth and that myth's representatives. In my utopia, confronting bigotry never involves convincing someone that his/her boogeyman doesn't really care about other people's race, gender, sexuality, or creed.

As far as your opening statement of your paragraph, you might reconsider that. If a statue of Jesus on a remote ski resort is worth taking to court, why would you be so sure?

It was on public land. The issue wasn't the statue itself. It's about what it means for public land to be used exclusively for a major religion at the exclusion of others.

Also comments in relation to parents relying on a deity to heal their child that they could have taken to a hospital is exactly the types of comments that are made with any real thought. There have been remote cases where a parent(s) refused medical help resulting in the death of an infant. And yes, it would be wonderful if this never happens again. But often times these remote instances are casually attached to religion with the intent of vilifying religion as a whole

Casually attached to religion? Did you miss the part about stymieing medical development? It isn't just JWs refusing blood transfusions for their kids, Christian Scientists refusing all medical treatment, or other religious groups refusing cancer treatments. It's also about a major chunk of the US population throwing a fit over stuff like embryonic stem cell research while they ignore IVF therapy. Religion has a long history of attacking science and medicine, and hurting its followers as a result. This is hardly a casual attachment.

I don't see spirituality going away to usher in some kind of united atheism. Religious faith will become more agnostic in the future before it dissolves. A gradual change.

The whole idea behind agnosticism is not knowing whether or not there is a God. The one thing that would continue to kill either a united atheist/agnostic society would entail God's continual personal revelation to individuals. In short, a religion-free utopia would be impossible.

The only people I've witnessed who have had personal revelations with God are either capitalizing on it or are stark raving mad. We have a saint among us here.

Making money off of it?

I do believe that scientific advancement and free thinking will become the focus rather than looking for the meaning of life in archaic scrolls.

At what point? We can travel half-way across the world within a day. Communicate with people on the other side of the globe in a matter of seconds. And thrives at the same level it always has. What magical element of advancement is going to usher in a religion-free world?

Eventually we will grow out of religion, yes.

Assuming you're an agnostic, how could you know that?

This could never be a world without meaning or love, because of us. It would just make more sense without the dogma.

I'm not sure what you mean. Can you expound on this a bit?

What I mean is that the lack of religion will not affect the good in people.

I don't see spirituality going away to usher in some kind of united atheism. Religious faith will become more agnostic in the future before it dissolves. A gradual change.

The whole idea behind agnosticism is not knowing whether or not there is a God. The one thing that would continue to kill either a united atheist/agnostic society would entail God's continual personal revelation to individuals. In short, a religion-free utopia would be impossible.

The only people I've witnessed who have had personal revelations with God are either capitalizing on it or are stark raving mad. We have a saint among us here.

Making money off of it?

I do believe that scientific advancement and free thinking will become the focus rather than looking for the meaning of life in archaic scrolls.

At what point? We can travel half-way across the world within a day. Communicate with people on the other side of the globe in a matter of seconds. And thrives at the same level it always has. What magical element of advancement is going to usher in a religion-free world?

Eventually we will grow out of religion, yes.

Assuming you're an agnostic, how could you know that?

And what have you to prove that we wont?

This could never be a world without meaning or love, because of us. It would just make more sense without the dogma.

I'm not sure what you mean. Can you expound on this a bit?

What I mean is that the lack of religion will not affect the good in people.

You're still talking about public property, so I'm not sure why you're mentioning this stuff. Still no indication that atheists would ever go after symbols on private property. Furthermore, the symbols don't upset us. No atheist "get[s] sick" seeing a monumental cross at Ground Zero or any other religion symbol. What bothers us is the exclusivity of it. People lose their crap at the very idea of a mosque near Ground Zero, but a cross doesn't even get a blink. You can either allow all or none, and we think none makes more sense. Otherwise you potentially wind up with cluttered public areas that just become dumping grounds for everyone's pet deity.

I should probably expound on the atheists getting sick part. This is what I'm talking about.

However, what became a symbol of remembrance and consolation for many in the aftermath of the September 11 horrors is now a supposed source of indigestion and nausea to others. In their lawsuit filed last week demanding removal of the cross from the publicly funded 9/11 Memorial and Museum, American Atheists listed "dyspepsia," "headaches," and "mental anguish" as physical injuries allegedly suffered by non-believers at the mere thought of the cross being included in a permanent display.

Now how honest the claimants to being sick are is another issue. So maybe you can tell me if these claims are legit or fabrications.

As far as symbols on private property goes, although this wasn't an issue of having a symbol removed in a private business, do you think the couple who own the Colorado bakery that refused to make a gay wedding cake should be cited? A similar thing is happening in a bakery in Northern Ireland. The same thing happened to a wedding photographer refusing to service a gay wedding. The same thing happened to a floral business. Were the gay couples out of line in going after these private businesses?

As far as the include all or none theme, what a convenient catch-22 (for atheists). We have to include all religious icons which would be impossible, so since we can't display every religion in the world, keep them all away. You even went as far as to suggest they would clutter up neighborhoods which is yet another convenient loophole. Pretty sneaky.

Plus, we have to consider the implications made that the religious are intolerant. Atheists activists may not go after religious symbolism on private property due to a binding clause they currently feel the need to respect originating from the founding fathers. For example, they maintain that a Christian who owns a bakery open to the public is practicing discrimination if they refuse to produce a cake for a gay wedding. However, they wouldn't object if this bakery was on church grounds. Or, they don't object to a church minister refusing to marry a gay couple because of the side of the alleged separation wall between church and State they are on. The question is, is this because it's no longer discrimination if this is on church property (feel free to answer by the way). And if it still is discrimination, then it would obviously be tolerated discrimination based on a binding historic technicality. Do you really think they would refrain from attempting to chip away at that technicality?

Seriously!

Yes, I do think they'd refrain. It isn't just some "technicality." Private versus public is not just a "technicality." By the way, the idea that a business owner can't discriminate has absolutely nothing to do with atheism, so I don't know why you bring it up.

The court cases I've brought up involving gay weddings are based on religion. I don't know how directly involved atheists activists group are in these cases other than voicing their opinion that businesses shouldn't have the right to refuse to serve gay marriages, but religious icons doesn't have anything to do with atheism either. Atheist groups just choose to make it atheist issues.

Do you think these private businesses who bring religion conviction into their business affairs are in constitutional violation of Separation Of Church And State?

As far as your opening statement of your paragraph, you might reconsider that. If a statue of Jesus on a remote ski resort is worth taking to court, why would you be so sure?

It was on public land. The issue wasn't the statue itself. It's about what it means for public land to be used exclusively for a major religion at the exclusion of others.

Do you really expect me to believe this is about exclusion? The atheists are so upset because on that ski resort there is no Buddha statue, no Vishnu statue, no Zeus statue, etc.?

Also comments in relation to parents relying on a deity to heal their child that they could have taken to a hospital is exactly the types of comments that are made with any real thought. There have been remote cases where a parent(s) refused medical help resulting in the death of an infant. And yes, it would be wonderful if this never happens again. But often times these remote instances are casually attached to religion with the intent of vilifying religion as a whole

Casually attached to religion? Did you miss the part about stymieing medical development? It isn't just JWs refusing blood transfusions for their kids, Christian Scientists refusing all medical treatment, or other religious groups refusing cancer treatments. It's also about a major chunk of the US population throwing a fit over stuff like embryonic stem cell research while they ignore IVF therapy. Religion has a long history of attacking science and medicine, and hurting its followers as a result. This is hardly a casual attachment.

You identified 2 very specific religious groups (Jehovah Witnesses and Christian Scientists) in regards to issues that have nothing to do with other religions, but attempt to tie all religions (or more likely just evangelical Christianity) together by bringing up embryonic stem cell research. However it appears you are presenting it more as an American public opinion issue (and rightly so). The ESCR issue, in similar fashion to the abortion issue is a pro-life issue. Not all proponents of pro-life are associated with religion. Yes, many Christians are a part of the pro-life movement, but that doesn't make it a religious issue. And not all religious, or even evangelical Christians are against abortion and ESCR anyway.

Do you see the problem with imprecise wording to make something appear a certain way to sway others?

At 11/11/2014 4:56:07 PM, Burzmali wrote:You're still talking about public property, so I'm not sure why you're mentioning this stuff. Still no indication that atheists would ever go after symbols on private property. Furthermore, the symbols don't upset us. No atheist "get[s] sick" seeing a monumental cross at Ground Zero or any other religion symbol. What bothers us is the exclusivity of it. People lose their crap at the very idea of a mosque near Ground Zero, but a cross doesn't even get a blink. You can either allow all or none, and we think none makes more sense. Otherwise you potentially wind up with cluttered public areas that just become dumping grounds for everyone's pet deity.

I should probably expound on the atheists getting sick part. This is what I'm talking about.

However, what became a symbol of remembrance and consolation for many in the aftermath of the September 11 horrors is now a supposed source of indigestion and nausea to others. In their lawsuit filed last week demanding removal of the cross from the publicly funded 9/11 Memorial and Museum, American Atheists listed "dyspepsia," "headaches," and "mental anguish" as physical injuries allegedly suffered by non-believers at the mere thought of the cross being included in a permanent display.

Now how honest the claimants to being sick are is another issue. So maybe you can tell me if these claims are legit or fabrications.

The link to the lawsuit at that site is broken. Can you find a working link to the actual lawsuit? I have serious doubts about the context of those words.

As far as symbols on private property goes, although this wasn't an issue of having a symbol removed in a private business, do you think the couple who own the Colorado bakery that refused to make a gay wedding cake should be cited? A similar thing is happening in a bakery in Northern Ireland. The same thing happened to a wedding photographer refusing to service a gay wedding. The same thing happened to a floral business. Were the gay couples out of line in going after these private businesses?

The issue is about discrimination, period. This reason just happens to be rooted in religious belief. None of the objections to the discrimination are based on the first amendment. It's commerce related. The same principle that says a business can't discriminate based on sex or ethnicity also covers sexual orientation. The law makes no distinction about whether that discrimination is backed by religion.

As far as the include all or none theme, what a convenient catch-22 (for atheists). We have to include all religious icons which would be impossible, so since we can't display every religion in the world, keep them all away. You even went as far as to suggest they would clutter up neighborhoods which is yet another convenient loophole. Pretty sneaky.

To clarify, it's that all have to be allowed, or none. If a Christian statue exists, then any other religion that wants to put something up has to be allowed to do so. If no one wants to put up a Buddhist monument that's fine. But if someone wants to put one up, then they have to be allowed. This has the potential to lead to some clutter and we just think it's more practical to disallow all.

Yes, I do think they'd refrain. It isn't just some "technicality." Private versus public is not just a "technicality." By the way, the idea that a business owner can't discriminate has absolutely nothing to do with atheism, so I don't know why you bring it up.

The court cases I've brought up involving gay weddings are based on religion. I don't know how directly involved atheists activists group are in these cases other than voicing their opinion that businesses shouldn't have the right to refuse to serve gay marriages, but religious icons doesn't have anything to do with atheism either. Atheist groups just choose to make it atheist issues.

Do you think these private businesses who bring religion conviction into their business affairs are in constitutional violation of Separation Of Church And State?

The discrimination is based on religion, but the legal backing for punishing the businesses is not. The first amendment has nothing to do with it. They're violating commerce laws.

It was on public land. The issue wasn't the statue itself. It's about what it means for public land to be used exclusively for a major religion at the exclusion of others.

Do you really expect me to believe this is about exclusion? The atheists are so upset because on that ski resort there is no Buddha statue, no Vishnu statue, no Zeus statue, etc.?

Atheists expect that an attempt to put a Buddhist monument on the same land would be met with resistance. I don't know the full details of the this particular case, but the FFRF has lately only been getting involved when some religion monument exists and then another religion is barred from putting their own monument in the same place. Yes, it is about exclusion.

Casually attached to religion? Did you miss the part about stymieing medical development? It isn't just JWs refusing blood transfusions for their kids, Christian Scientists refusing all medical treatment, or other religious groups refusing cancer treatments. It's also about a major chunk of the US population throwing a fit over stuff like embryonic stem cell research while they ignore IVF therapy. Religion has a long history of attacking science and medicine, and hurting its followers as a result. This is hardly a casual attachment.

You identified 2 very specific religious groups (Jehovah Witnesses and Christian Scientists) in regards to issues that have nothing to do with other religions, but attempt to tie all religions (or more likely just evangelical Christianity) together by bringing up embryonic stem cell research. However it appears you are presenting it more as an American public opinion issue (and rightly so). The ESCR issue, in similar fashion to the abortion issue is a pro-life issue. Not all proponents of pro-life are associated with religion. Yes, many Christians are a part of the pro-life movement, but that doesn't make it a religious issue. And not all religious, or even evangelical Christians are against abortion and ESCR anyway.

Do you see the problem with imprecise wording to make something appear a certain way to sway others?

Except with regard to quality of life, the denial of life-saving treatment for children by parents is always religiously based. JW and CS are the first two that come to mind, but I have no doubt I could find other examples from other religions. Furthermore, there are examples of religious belief leading to death in other ways. In Ireland they have strict, religiously-based anti-abortion laws. A woman there was on the verge of death and the only way to save her would also kill her unborn child. The fetus was dead no matter what, but the law said she couldn't receive treatment until the fetus died first. She died in the hospital because the fetus outlived her by a few seconds. This kind of thing is always religious in nature. If religion didn't exist, there would be fewer incidents of unnecessary death. No amount of "not all religions" will change that.

As far as ESCR is concerned, there is no secular objection to it at all, as far as I'm aware. Yes, there are some secular pro-life people, but I have not heard of any such individuals being against ESCR.

At 11/11/2014 12:58:06 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:What do you think it would really be like? For at least a certain amount of atheists, it would go something like this.

As scientific advancement increases, along with the modern concept of Separation OfChurch And State, the citizens of the world will become more educated which will gradually lead to less and less need for religion. Eventually, without any extreme measures resulting in persecution, religion will eventually disappear. The Bible will remain a book of historical value, because as Richard Dawkins put it, people will read it and texts particularly in the O.T. will push people away from Christianity (I don't know what he does with the conversions to Christianity involving reading the entire book). My guess is that RD also understands that the prohibition of the Bible creates mass interest in the Bible as witnessed in communist and former communist countries. And of course when this Utopia comes into existence, everyone will live (relatively) happily ever after.

Really? Assuming this is the general idea (correct me if it isn't), there's a huge problem. Atheists, like anyone else, do not all think alike. I admit, there's some commonalities, but there's no guarantee even those will remain for any given length of time.

Let's consider these words by Richard Dawkins:

But at this point he turns it back around again. I try to clarify my own views to him. "You would feel deprived if there weren"t any churches?" he asks. "Yes," I respond. He mulls this before replying. "I would feel deprived in the same spirit of the English cricket match that I mentioned, that is close to my heart. Yes, I would feel a loss there. I would feel an aesthetic loss. I would miss church bells, that kind of thing."

And what about the fear of losing the tradition? "Yes. I sort of understand that. I certainly would absolutely never do what some of my American colleagues do and object to religious symbols being used, putting crosses up in the public square and things like that, I don"t fret about that at all, I"m quite happy about that. But I think I share your Anglican nostalgia, especially when you look at the competition."

This is particularly interesting since he's a member of the Freedom From ReligionFoundation who does exactly what he is protesting (his colleagues he was referring to?).

So Dawkins apparently does have some insight to a religion-free-society not being quite the utopia he would hope for. At least in regards to a good possibility that cultural Anglicism may not be tolerated.

One of the commonalities among modern American atheists, although they throw out the term religion loosely, is to exclude eastern religion like Buddhism from religion-free-sentiment. However, who's to say that commonality would remain? While many American atheists may not feel sentimental regret for the removal of Christian symbolism in America (like Dawkins would for the Anglican church), I would say many of them (particularly in my area) would be horrified at the removal of Asian art museums which contain eastern religious symbols, Thai Restaurants which often have Buddhist deity symbols, Indian restaurants with their Hindu symbols, etc.? Who's to say the upcoming generation of atheists won't consider their atheist forefathers like Richard Dawkins, Dan Barker, etc. wimps for compromising with some religions like Buddhism, or having sentimental feelings for Christian culture, etc.? What makes one think atheists are all just going to think in harmonious unison?

Consider the old adage, "be careful what you ask for".

Not even Christians live in harmonious unison. Billy Graham suggested that all denominations be abolished and unite in peace. He was called a heretic for this reason because nobody is going to get along on beliefs and personal views.

At 11/11/2014 12:58:06 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:What do you think it would really be like? For at least a certain amount of atheists, it would go something like this.

As scientific advancement increases, along with the modern concept of Separation OfChurch And State, the citizens of the world will become more educated which will gradually lead to less and less need for religion. Eventually, without any extreme measures resulting in persecution, religion will eventually disappear. The Bible will remain a book of historical value, because as Richard Dawkins put it, people will read it and texts particularly in the O.T. will push people away from Christianity (I don't know what he does with the conversions to Christianity involving reading the entire book). My guess is that RD also understands that the prohibition of the Bible creates mass interest in the Bible as witnessed in communist and former communist countries. And of course when this Utopia comes into existence, everyone will live (relatively) happily ever after.

Really? Assuming this is the general idea (correct me if it isn't), there's a huge problem. Atheists, like anyone else, do not all think alike. I admit, there's some commonalities, but there's no guarantee even those will remain for any given length of time.

Let's consider these words by Richard Dawkins:

But at this point he turns it back around again. I try to clarify my own views to him. "You would feel deprived if there weren"t any churches?" he asks. "Yes," I respond. He mulls this before replying. "I would feel deprived in the same spirit of the English cricket match that I mentioned, that is close to my heart. Yes, I would feel a loss there. I would feel an aesthetic loss. I would miss church bells, that kind of thing."

And what about the fear of losing the tradition? "Yes. I sort of understand that. I certainly would absolutely never do what some of my American colleagues do and object to religious symbols being used, putting crosses up in the public square and things like that, I don"t fret about that at all, I"m quite happy about that. But I think I share your Anglican nostalgia, especially when you look at the competition."

This is particularly interesting since he's a member of the Freedom From ReligionFoundation who does exactly what he is protesting (his colleagues he was referring to?).

So Dawkins apparently does have some insight to a religion-free-society not being quite the utopia he would hope for. At least in regards to a good possibility that cultural Anglicism may not be tolerated.

One of the commonalities among modern American atheists, although they throw out the term religion loosely, is to exclude eastern religion like Buddhism from religion-free-sentiment. However, who's to say that commonality would remain? While many American atheists may not feel sentimental regret for the removal of Christian symbolism in America (like Dawkins would for the Anglican church), I would say many of them (particularly in my area) would be horrified at the removal of Asian art museums which contain eastern religious symbols, Thai Restaurants which often have Buddhist deity symbols, Indian restaurants with their Hindu symbols, etc.? Who's to say the upcoming generation of atheists won't consider their atheist forefathers like Richard Dawkins, Dan Barker, etc. wimps for compromising with some religions like Buddhism, or having sentimental feelings for Christian culture, etc.? What makes one think atheists are all just going to think in harmonious unison?

Consider the old adage, "be careful what you ask for".

We won't experience religion, science, governments, schools, death, accidents, disease, storms, earthquakes, etc. in Paradise after this world is destroyed.

I don't see spirituality going away to usher in some kind of united atheism. Religious faith will become more agnostic in the future before it dissolves. A gradual change.

The whole idea behind agnosticism is not knowing whether or not there is a God. The one thing that would continue to kill either a united atheist/agnostic society would entail God's continual personal revelation to individuals. In short, a religion-free utopia would be impossible.

The only people I've witnessed who have had personal revelations with God are either capitalizing on it or are stark raving mad. We have a saint among us here.

Making money off of it?

I do believe that scientific advancement and free thinking will become the focus rather than looking for the meaning of life in archaic scrolls.

At what point? We can travel half-way across the world within a day. Communicate with people on the other side of the globe in a matter of seconds. And thrives at the same level it always has. What magical element of advancement is going to usher in a religion-free world?

Eventually we will grow out of religion, yes.

Assuming you're an agnostic, how could you know that?

And what have you to prove that we wont?

Obviously I can't prove that we won't, but I certainly don't see signs that we would. If anything, just the opposite.

This could never be a world without meaning or love, because of us. It would just make more sense without the dogma.

I'm not sure what you mean. Can you expound on this a bit?

What I mean is that the lack of religion will not affect the good in people.

The link to the lawsuit at that site is broken. Can you find a working link to the actual lawsuit? I have serious doubts about the context of those words.

No, I haven't. I looked for it on another site I think is reputable, and get the same thing on their link. So obviously a number of sources are either lying about it, or someone(s) removed it. I think it's the latter. If the comment claimed to have been made in court didn't happen, or exaggerated in any way, I'm sure the atheist group would have cleared that up. I remember around the time it first came up and reading where a lawyer confronted the group in regards to those comments, and don't recall any denial that they were made.

The issue is about discrimination, period. This reason just happens to be rooted in religious belief. None of the objections to the discrimination are based on the first amendment. It's commerce related. The same principle that says a business can't discriminate based on sex or ethnicity also covers sexual orientation. The law makes no distinction about whether that discrimination is backed by religion.

The claim made against the owner is about discrimination, but the case includes religion. The controversy was about discrimination vs. religious freedom. The claimants and the court were presenting it as a discrimination issue. The defendants were addressing it as a freedom of speech and religion issue. The reason I'm addressing this to you as an issue of Separation of Church and State is because this involves a private business serving the public, and the case would not be made if it were a church bakery.

So the question addressed to you still stands, were the gay couples out of line in going after these private businesses?

To clarify, it's that all have to be allowed, or none. If a Christian statue exists, then any other religion that wants to put something up has to be allowed to do so. If no one wants to put up a Buddhist monument that's fine. But if someone wants to put one up, then they have to be allowed. This has the potential to lead to some clutter and we just think it's more practical to disallow all.

I understand. My point is that you (atheists) do not reallywant to allow it. It's a nice way of saying we want to allow it in principle, but not in action.

Do you think these private businesses who bring religion conviction into their business affairs are in constitutional violation of Separation Of Church And State?

The discrimination is based on religion, but the legal backing for punishing the businesses is not. The first amendment has nothing to do with it. They're violating commerce laws.

Yes, and commerce is practiced on church grounds. Performing weddings involve a business transaction as well. So the question to you still stands.

It was on public land. The issue wasn't the statue itself. It's about what it means for public land to be used exclusively for a major religion at the exclusion of others.

The presence of the statue on the Montana ski resort has had nothing to do with exclusion to anyone's other religion. The same claim was made when high school cheerleaders were putting scripture on signs at a football game in Texas. Part of the complaint was that the people who support putting scripture on signs would protest Muslims putting quranic verses on signs. An accusation of something that never even happened.

Atheists expect that an attempt to put a Buddhist monument on the same land would be met with resistance. I don't know the full details of the this particular case, but the FFRF has lately only been getting involved when some religion monument exists and then another religion is barred from putting their own monument in the same place. Yes, it is about exclusion.

You had the first part right. They expect that attempts to put up other religious monuments would be met with resistance, but it in these various cases it's just speculation. And just as you admitted, they really don't want any religious symbolism put up at all. It would either clutter, or promote clutter.

Do you see the problem with imprecise wording to make something appear a certain way to sway others?

Except with regard to quality of life, the denial of life-saving treatment for children by parents is always religiously based. JW and CS are the first two that come to mind, but I have no doubt I could find other examples from other religions. Furthermore, there are examples of religious belief leading to death in other ways. In Ireland they have strict, religiously-based anti-abortion laws. A woman there was on the verge of death and the only way to save her would also kill her unborn child. The fetus was dead no matter what, but the law said she couldn't receive treatment until the fetus died first. She died in the hospital because the fetus outlived her by a few seconds. This kind of thing is always religious in nature. If religion didn't exist, there would be fewer incidents of unnecessary death. No amount of "not all religions" will change that.

You might not have any doubt, but you're still generalizing for your own convenience. Yes, you would have to go through google searches to try and claim your point. You lumped all religions together because of specific actions by 2 specific religions. In Ireland, that strict religious law is Catholicism. Not Protestantism, not Mormonism, not Islam, not Judaism, not Hinduism, not Buddhism, not Shinto, not.......

As far as ESCR is concerned, there is no secular objection to it at all, as far as I'm aware. Yes, there are some secular pro-life people, but I have not heard of any such individuals being against ESCR.

Many try to paint the abortion/ESCR issue as religion vs. secularism, humanism, etc. This is not true. The pro-life movement is about doing everything possible to save lives, but not at the expense of others. There are people in general who view abortion and ESCR as murder. Plain and simple.

Not even Christians live in harmonious unison. Billy Graham suggested that all denominations be abolished and unite in peace. He was called a heretic for this reason because nobody is going to get along on beliefs and personal views.

True. And the Apostle Paul gave us foresight concerning the issue of divisions. And I know that Graham is considered a heretic by some. I think they take his comment about the removal of denominations out of context, thinking he wants to unite all Christianity including cults that don't believe the core tenets of Christianity, or maybe even that he wants to unite all religions.

What I think Graham is getting at is uniting all who believe the core tenets of Christianity (the Body of Christ).

At 11/12/2014 11:33:59 AM, Burzmali wrote:The link to the lawsuit at that site is broken. Can you find a working link to the actual lawsuit? I have serious doubts about the context of those words.

No, I haven't. I looked for it on another site I think is reputable, and get the same thing on their link. So obviously a number of sources are either lying about it, or someone(s) removed it. I think it's the latter. If the comment claimed to have been made in court didn't happen, or exaggerated in any way, I'm sure the atheist group would have cleared that up. I remember around the time it first came up and reading where a lawyer confronted the group in regards to those comments, and don't recall any denial that they were made.

I don't doubt that the words in question appear in the suit. I doubt the validity of the context they're used in (like I said in my post up there). If you can't actually provide evidence for your assertion, though, I'll just assume we can drop it.

The issue is about discrimination, period. This reason just happens to be rooted in religious belief. None of the objections to the discrimination are based on the first amendment. It's commerce related. The same principle that says a business can't discriminate based on sex or ethnicity also covers sexual orientation. The law makes no distinction about whether that discrimination is backed by religion.

The claim made against the owner is about discrimination, but the case includes religion. The controversy was about discrimination vs. religious freedom. The claimants and the court were presenting it as a discrimination issue. The defendants were addressing it as a freedom of speech and religion issue. The reason I'm addressing this to you as an issue of Separation of Church and State is because this involves a private business serving the public, and the case would not be made if it were a church bakery.

So the question addressed to you still stands, were the gay couples out of line in going after these private businesses?

Do you think these private businesses who bring religion conviction into their business affairs are in constitutional violation of Separation Of Church And State?

The discrimination is based on religion, but the legal backing for punishing the businesses is not. The first amendment has nothing to do with it. They're violating commerce laws.

Yes, and commerce is practiced on church grounds. Performing weddings involve a business transaction as well. So the question to you still stands.

Have a look at the change to your question. You asked if the businesses were violating church/state separation and now you're asking if gay couples are out of line. My answer is that I don't know enough to say. But at this point, you're asking me about non-atheists dealing with non-atheists. This line of thought is no longer within the scope of the discussion. Let me know when you want to try to bring it back on point.

To clarify, it's that all have to be allowed, or none. If a Christian statue exists, then any other religion that wants to put something up has to be allowed to do so. If no one wants to put up a Buddhist monument that's fine. But if someone wants to put one up, then they have to be allowed. This has the potential to lead to some clutter and we just think it's more practical to disallow all.

I understand. My point is that you (atheists) do not really want to allow it. It's a nice way of saying we want to allow it in principle, but not in action.

It was on public land. The issue wasn't the statue itself. It's about what it means for public land to be used exclusively for a major religion at the exclusion of others.

The presence of the statue on the Montana ski resort has had nothing to do with exclusion to anyone's other religion. The same claim was made when high school cheerleaders were putting scripture on signs at a football game in Texas. Part of the complaint was that the people who support putting scripture on signs would protest Muslims putting quranic verses on signs. An accusation of something that never even happened.

Atheists expect that an attempt to put a Buddhist monument on the same land would be met with resistance. I don't know the full details of the this particular case, but the FFRF has lately only been getting involved when some religion monument exists and then another religion is barred from putting their own monument in the same place. Yes, it is about exclusion.

You had the first part right. They expect that attempts to put up other religious monuments would be met with resistance, but it in these various cases it's just speculation. And just as you admitted, they really don't want any religious symbolism put up at all. It would either clutter, or promote clutter.

We don't want them there for the practicality of it all. Every time atheists have fought this battle, when the courts have said "just make sure everyone is allowed to be included," atheists have accepted that and moved on. They've even participated by providing their own monuments/statues/benches/plaques. That's my evidence that it is really about exclusion. Once the exclusion is dealt with, atheists move on. Can you rebut that with anything other than conjecture?

Except with regard to quality of life, the denial of life-saving treatment for children by parents is always religiously based. JW and CS are the first two that come to mind, but I have no doubt I could find other examples from other religions. Furthermore, there are examples of religious belief leading to death in other ways. In Ireland they have strict, religiously-based anti-abortion laws. A woman there was on the verge of death and the only way to save her would also kill her unborn child. The fetus was dead no matter what, but the law said she couldn't receive treatment until the fetus died first. She died in the hospital because the fetus outlived her by a few seconds. This kind of thing is always religious in nature. If religion didn't exist, there would be fewer incidents of unnecessary death. No amount of "not all religions" will change that.

You might not have any doubt, but you're still generalizing for your own convenience. Yes, you would have to go through google searches to try and claim your point. You lumped all religions together because of specific actions by 2 specific religions. In Ireland, that strict religious law is Catholicism. Not Protestantism, not Mormonism, not Islam, not Judaism, not Hinduism, not Buddhism, not Shinto, not.......

What part of that is meant to rebut my point? I'm citing this as one example of irrationality brought about by religion. There were other examples, like bigotry. A "utopia" free of religion would be more rational (or at least less irrational, if you think the two are different) by virtue of fewer things like this. Do you dispute that?

As far as ESCR is concerned, there is no secular objection to it at all, as far as I'm aware. Yes, there are some secular pro-life people, but I have not heard of any such individuals being against ESCR.

Many try to paint the abortion/ESCR issue as religion vs. secularism, humanism, etc. This is not true. The pro-life movement is about doing everything possible to save lives, but not at the expense of others. There are people in general who view abortion and ESCR as murder. Plain and simple.

Thank you for the link and I stand informed. Now, I could talk to someone there about the validity of ESCR without first wading through "my god says x." So my point still stands: no religion = less irrationality.

Not even Christians live in harmonious unison. Billy Graham suggested that all denominations be abolished and unite in peace. He was called a heretic for this reason because nobody is going to get along on beliefs and personal views.

True. And the Apostle Paul gave us foresight concerning the issue of divisions. And I know that Graham is considered a heretic by some. I think they take his comment about the removal of denominations out of context, thinking he wants to unite all Christianity including cults that don't believe the core tenets of Christianity, or maybe even that he wants to unite all religions.

What I think Graham is getting at is uniting all who believe the core tenets of Christianity (the Body of Christ).

At 11/12/2014 11:33:59 AM, Burzmali wrote:The link to the lawsuit at that site is broken. Can you find a working link to the actual lawsuit? I have serious doubts about the context of those words.

No, I haven't. I looked for it on another site I think is reputable, and get the same thing on their link. So obviously a number of sources are either lying about it, or someone(s) removed it. I think it's the latter. If the comment claimed to have been made in court didn't happen, or exaggerated in any way, I'm sure the atheist group would have cleared that up. I remember around the time it first came up and reading where a lawyer confronted the group in regards to those comments, and don't recall any denial that they were made.

I don't doubt that the words in question appear in the suit. I doubt the validity of the context they're used in (like I said in my post up there). If you can't actually provide evidence for your assertion, though, I'll just assume we can drop it.

The issue is about discrimination, period. This reason just happens to be rooted in religious belief. None of the objections to the discrimination are based on the first amendment. It's commerce related. The same principle that says a business can't discriminate based on sex or ethnicity also covers sexual orientation. The law makes no distinction about whether that discrimination is backed by religion.

The claim made against the owner is about discrimination, but the case includes religion. The controversy was about discrimination vs. religious freedom. The claimants and the court were presenting it as a discrimination issue. The defendants were addressing it as a freedom of speech and religion issue. The reason I'm addressing this to you as an issue of Separation of Church and State is because this involves a private business serving the public, and the case would not be made if it were a church bakery.

So the question addressed to you still stands, were the gay couples out of line in going after these private businesses?

Do you think these private businesses who bring religion conviction into their business affairs are in constitutional violation of Separation Of Church And State?

The discrimination is based on religion, but the legal backing for punishing the businesses is not. The first amendment has nothing to do with it. They're violating commerce laws.

The first amendment has everything to do with it from the defendants point of view. The case being made by the defendants is that the defendant's FA rights are being violated.

Yes, and commerce is practiced on church grounds. Performing weddings involve a business transaction as well. So the question to you still stands.

Have a look at the change to your question. You asked if the businesses were violating church/state separation and now you're asking if gay couples are out of line. My answer is that I don't know enough to say. But at this point, you're asking me about non-atheists dealing with non-atheists. This line of thought is no longer within the scope of the discussion. Let me know when you want to try to bring it back on point.

As the producer of this thread, you have full permission to answer the question. There's no requirement made that this particular court case has to involve an atheist activist group. And a religion free utopia doesn't require 100% atheism as agnostics express the same type of sentiment towards religion. So it doesn't really matter too much whether or not the parties involved in this case are atheists.

I'm also skeptical about your claim about not knowing enough to say since you apparently know enough to make your prior claim. And I don't think there's really a whole lot to know in order to give an opinion. From an atheist site.

Churches are exempt from these types of discrimination laws. This is why ministers are not required to perform union or marriage ceremonies for gay couples. If the owner of the bakery was selling cakes at a church, and refused to produce a cake for a gay wedding, he would not have been cited. As far as my question, we can remove the spotlight on the gay couple and shift it over to the court ruling (whether they are atheists, agnostics, Christians, etc.) that this bakery owner is guilty of discrimination. Do you agree with the court ruling on this matter?

To clarify, it's that all have to be allowed, or none. If a Christian statue exists, then any other religion that wants to put something up has to be allowed to do so. If no one wants to put up a Buddhist monument that's fine. But if someone wants to put one up, then they have to be allowed. This has the potential to lead to some clutter and we just think it's more practical to disallow all.

I understand. My point is that you (atheists) do not really want to allow it. It's a nice way of saying we want to allow it in principle, but not in action.

It was on public land. The issue wasn't the statue itself. It's about what it means for public land to be used exclusively for a major religion at the exclusion of others.

The presence of the statue on the Montana ski resort has had nothing to do with exclusion to anyone's other religion. The same claim was made when high school cheerleaders were putting scripture on signs at a football game in Texas. Part of the complaint was that the people who support putting scripture on signs would protest Muslims putting quranic verses on signs. An accusation of something that never even happened.

Atheists expect that an attempt to put a Buddhist monument on the same land would be met with resistance. I don't know the full details of the this particular case, but the FFRF has lately only been getting involved when some religion monument exists and then another religion is barred from putting their own monument in the same place. Yes, it is about exclusion.

You had the first part right. They expect that attempts to put up other religious monuments would be met with resistance, but it in these various cases it's just speculation. And just as you admitted, they really don't want any religious symbolism put up at all. It would either clutter, or promote clutter.

We don't want them there for the practicality of it all. Every time atheists have fought this battle, when the courts have said "just make sure everyone is allowed to be included," atheists have accepted that and moved on. They've even participated by providing their own monuments/statues/benches/plaques. That's my evidence that it is really about exclusion. Once the exclusion is dealt with, atheists move on. Can you rebut that with anything other than conjecture?

The Freedom From Religion Foundation has no apparent intention of moving on in this case.

"The Freedom From Religion Foundation said it has no plans to retreat."

Except with regard to quality of life, the denial of life-saving treatment for children by parents is always religiously based. JW and CS are the first two that come to mind, but I have no doubt I could find other examples from other religions. Furthermore, there are examples of religious belief leading to death in other ways. In Ireland they have strict, religiously-based anti-abortion laws. A woman there was on the verge of death and the only way to save her would also kill her unborn child. The fetus was dead no matter what, but the law said she couldn't receive treatment until the fetus died first. She died in the hospital because the fetus outlived her by a few seconds. This kind of thing is always religious in nature. If religion didn't exist, there would be fewer incidents of unnecessary death. No amount of "not all religions" will change that.

You might not have any doubt, but you're still generalizing for your own convenience. Yes, you would have to go through google searches to try and claim your point. You lumped all religions together because of specific actions by 2 specific religions. In Ireland, that strict religious law is Catholicism. Not Protestantism, not Mormonism, not Islam, not Judaism, not Hinduism, not Buddhism, not Shinto, not.......

What part of that is meant to rebut my point? I'm citing this as one example of irrationality brought about by religion. There were other examples, like bigotry. A "utopia" free of religion would be more rational (or at least less irrational, if you think the two are different) by virtue of fewer things like this. Do you dispute that?

And you don't there's bigotry among atheists? Communist countries practice bigotry. When Darwinian evolution came onto the scene, so did scientific racism. Every allegation aimed at any religion or religions as a whole has it's atheistic (and agnostic) mirror image.

As far as ESCR is concerned, there is no secular objection to it at all, as far as I'm aware. Yes, there are some secular pro-life people, but I have not heard of any such individuals being against ESCR.

Many try to paint the abortion/ESCR issue as religion vs. secularism, humanism, etc. This is not true. The pro-life movement is about doing everything possible to save lives, but not at the expense of others. There are people in general who view abortion and ESCR as murder. Plain and simple.

Thank you for the link and I stand informed. Now, I could talk to someone there about the validity of ESCR without fi

I put these back together. I've been trying to cull as much quoted material as possible to keep these to a single post. I'm just going to ignore anything beyond one post, though, because the amount of work to cull and bring stuff back together (especially if I'm the only one doing it) just isn't worth it.

At 11/14/2014 9:58:16 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:

At 11/13/2014 1:27:13 PM, Burzmali wrote:I don't doubt that the words in question appear in the suit. I doubt the validity of the context they're used in (like I said in my post up there). If you can't actually provide evidence for your assertion, though, I'll just assume we can drop it.

As I suspected, they aren't sickened by the symbol. Here is the actual use of those words: Named plaintiffs have suffered, inter alia, dyspepsia, symbtoms of depression, headaches, anxiety, and mental pain and anguish from the knowledge that they are made to feel officially excluded form the ranks of citizens who were directly injured by the 9/11 attack....

So they are experiencing these things due to feelings of exclusion. The symbol itself is not sickening anyone.

And that is a nice lesson for everyone in why context and original sources are important.

Have a look at the change to your question. You asked if the businesses were violating church/state separation and now you're asking if gay couples are out of line. My answer is that I don't know enough to say. But at this point, you're asking me about non-atheists dealing with non-atheists. This line of thought is no longer within the scope of the discussion. Let me know when you want to try to bring it back on point.

As the producer of this thread, you have full permission to answer the question. There's no requirement made that this particular court case has to involve an atheist activist group. And a religion free utopia doesn't require 100% atheism as agnostics express the same type of sentiment towards religion. So it doesn't really matter too much whether or not the parties involved in this case are atheists.

I'm also skeptical about your claim about not knowing enough to say since you apparently know enough to make your prior claim. And I don't think there's really a whole lot to know in order to give an opinion. From an atheist site.

Churches are exempt from these types of discrimination laws. This is why ministers are not required to perform union or marriage ceremonies for gay couples. If the owner of the bakery was selling cakes at a church, and refused to produce a cake for a gay wedding, he would not have been cited. As far as my question, we can remove the spotlight on the gay couple and shift it over to the court ruling (whether they are atheists, agnostics, Christians, etc.) that this bakery owner is guilty of discrimination. Do you agree with the court ruling on this matter?

I meant that I don't know enough about commerce laws and the rationale that allows them to prohibit discrimination. As far as I can tell, though, the bakery is guilty of discrimination. I see no reason to disagree with the courts ruling. Churches are exempt from this kind of thing because they are not businesses. They may conduct services, but those aren't done for profit and the church is tax exempt.

Personally, I don't care about these kinds of things enough to get up in arms about them or even follow them very closely. If I hear that some business is discriminating against people, then I wouldn't shop there. I don't really care if that discrimination is punished by the government or not.

We don't want them there for the practicality of it all. Every time atheists have fought this battle, when the courts have said "just make sure everyone is allowed to be included," atheists have accepted that and moved on. They've even participated by providing their own monuments/statues/benches/plaques. That's my evidence that it is really about exclusion. Once the exclusion is dealt with, atheists move on. Can you rebut that with anything other than conjecture?

The Freedom From Religion Foundation has no apparent intention of moving on in this case.

"The Freedom From Religion Foundation said it has no plans to retreat."

How does that particular case apply to what I said? The cheerleaders are continuing to fight the ruling, so the FFRF is going to be there on the other side. And the ruling that allows for the continued presence of the banners doesn't do anything to guarantee other verses won't be excluded.

What part of that is meant to rebut my point? I'm citing this as one example of irrationality brought about by religion. There were other examples, like bigotry. A "utopia" free of religion would be more rational (or at least less irrational, if you think the two are different) by virtue of fewer things like this. Do you dispute that?

And you don't there's bigotry among atheists? Communist countries practice bigotry. When Darwinian evolution came onto the scene, so did scientific racism. Every allegation aimed at any religion or religions as a whole has it's atheistic (and agnostic) mirror image.

Did I say I thought bigotry didn't exist among atheists? No? Then why are you asking such a ridiculous question? Please address my point: less religion = less irrationality. I've seen nothing from you that disputes that.

At 11/14/2014 11:39:33 AM, Burzmali wrote:I put these back together. I've been trying to cull as much quoted material as possible to keep these to a single post. I'm just going to ignore anything beyond one post, though, because the amount of work to cull and bring stuff back together (especially if I'm the only one doing it) just isn't worth it.

At 11/14/2014 9:58:16 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:

At 11/13/2014 1:27:13 PM, Burzmali wrote:I don't doubt that the words in question appear in the suit. I doubt the validity of the context they're used in (like I said in my post up there). If you can't actually provide evidence for your assertion, though, I'll just assume we can drop it.

As I suspected, they aren't sickened by the symbol. Here is the actual use of those words: Named plaintiffs have suffered, inter alia, dyspepsia, symbtoms of depression, headaches, anxiety, and mental pain and anguish from the knowledge that they are made to feel officially excluded form the ranks of citizens who were directly injured by the 9/11 attack....

You've thrown around the term exclusion, which usually seemed to reference the exclusion of other religions. This is obviously not the type of exclusion we're talking about here. The atheists are probably not concerned about the Buddhist or Hindu being excluded (that's for the Buddhist and Hindu to worry about), but they themselves. They feel that because they don't believe in God and/or Jesus Christ they are somehow excluded from the national unifying sentiment of the incident. How much of that is true I don't know. I imagine that there is truth to it, but it's a rather unusual case to make to have a monument taken down. They have to be particularly sensitive.There are many things that cause people to feel excluded. TV commercials are a good example. They target a particular group, and at the same time can cause a feeling of exclusion to others, leaving people to feel offended. But, it's nonsense to assume anything that offends the hypersensitive have to be removed.

So they are experiencing these things due to feelings of exclusion. The symbol itself is not sickening anyone.

And that is a nice lesson for everyone in why context and original sources are important.

What context did you think was applied (by me or anyone else)? I wasn't suggesting that the sight of a vertical line and a horizontal line intersecting somehow causes offense, anymore than the 2 zig zag lines intersecting in the nazi symbol causes offense.

As the producer of this thread, you have full permission to answer the question. There's no requirement made that this particular court case has to involve an atheist activist group. And a religion free utopia doesn't require 100% atheism as agnostics express the same type of sentiment towards religion. So it doesn't really matter too much whether or not the parties involved in this case are atheists.

Churches are exempt from these types of discrimination laws. This is why ministers are not required to perform union or marriage ceremonies for gay couples. If the owner of the bakery was selling cakes at a church, and refused to produce a cake for a gay wedding, he would not have been cited. As far as my question, we can remove the spotlight on the gay couple and shift it over to the court ruling (whether they are atheists, agnostics, Christians, etc.) that this bakery owner is guilty of discrimination. Do you agree with the court ruling on this matter?

I meant that I don't know enough about commerce laws and the rationale that allows them to prohibit discrimination. As far as I can tell, though, the bakery is guilty of discrimination. I see no reason to disagree with the courts ruling. Churches are exempt from this kind of thing because they are not businesses. They may conduct services, but those aren't done for profit and the church is tax exempt.

Churches engage in commercial activity. Churches have things like bake sales, book and tape sales, etc. There are also ministers who perform weddings for profit.

Some homosexual activist groups are saying that when the church opens up its facilities it is engaging in commerce and becomes subject to anti-discrimination laws.

Personally, I don't care about these kinds of things enough to get up in arms about them or even follow them very closely. If I hear that some business is discriminating against people, then I wouldn't shop there. I don't really care if that discrimination is punished by the government or not.

It's generally the victims who are more concerned.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation has no apparent intention of moving on in this case.

"The Freedom From Religion Foundation said it has no plans to retreat."

How does that particular case apply to what I said? The cheerleaders are continuing to fight the ruling, so the FFRF is going to be there on the other side. And the ruling that allows for the continued presence of the banners doesn't do anything to guarantee other verses won't be excluded.

The cheerleaders won their case. And they made it clear that they wouldn't protest other cheerleaders placing quranic, or any other religious verses on signs either. There's no reason for the FFRF to go after them anymore.

What part of that is meant to rebut my point? I'm citing this as one example of irrationality brought about by religion. There were other examples, like bigotry. A "utopia" free of religion would be more rational (or at least less irrational, if you think the two are different) by virtue of fewer things like this. Do you dispute that?

And you don't there's bigotry among atheists? Communist countries practice bigotry. When Darwinian evolution came onto the scene, so did scientific racism. Every allegation aimed at any religion or religions as a whole has it's atheistic (and agnostic) mirror image.

Did I say I thought bigotry didn't exist among atheists? No? Then why are you asking such a ridiculous question? Please address my point: less religion = less irrationality. I've seen nothing from you that disputes that.

What do you base that point on?

To many Christians and myself, less religion = less human instigated rules and regulations, and more of the following of God's guidance . This was also the original theme the founding fathers of the U.S. promoted.

To you, less religion = less of the following of God's guidance. Right? Or am I wrong?

At 11/14/2014 11:39:33 AM, Burzmali wrote:As I suspected, they aren't sickened by the symbol. Here is the actual use of those words: Named plaintiffs have suffered, inter alia, dyspepsia, symbtoms of depression, headaches, anxiety, and mental pain and anguish from the knowledge that they are made to feel officially excluded form the ranks of citizens who were directly injured by the 9/11 attack....

You've thrown around the term exclusion, which usually seemed to reference the exclusion of other religions. This is obviously not the type of exclusion we're talking about here. The atheists are probably not concerned about the Buddhist or Hindu being excluded (that's for the Buddhist and Hindu to worry about), but they themselves. They feel that because they don't believe in God and/or Jesus Christ they are somehow excluded from the national unifying sentiment of the incident. How much of that is true I don't know. I imagine that there is truth to it, but it's a rather unusual case to make to have a monument taken down. They have to be particularly sensitive.There are many things that cause people to feel excluded. TV commercials are a good example. They target a particular group, and at the same time can cause a feeling of exclusion to others, leaving people to feel offended. But, it's nonsense to assume anything that offends the hypersensitive have to be removed.

They cite all non-Christian Americans in the suit (part 46 on page 10). Atheists may have brought the suit, but they aren't doing it just for themselves. The cross is exclusionary to non-Christians. Your TV commercial analogy isn't remotely relevant because that's private property rather than public land. It's the difference between feeling excluded by a company and feeling excluded by your government. The two aren't comparable.

So they are experiencing these things due to feelings of exclusion. The symbol itself is not sickening anyone.

And that is a nice lesson for everyone in why context and original sources are important.

What context did you think was applied (by me or anyone else)? I wasn't suggesting that the sight of a vertical line and a horizontal line intersecting somehow causes offense, anymore than the 2 zig zag lines intersecting in the nazi symbol causes offense.

Sorry, I got that impression because you appeared to be saying that future atheists might go after private displays. The only reason I could infer for that from your argument was that atheists are somehow sickened by religious displays in general. My mistake. The point is, atheists don't go after private displays. We go after displays on public land that appear to be exclusionary. We go after displays that appear to violate the first amendment. And we do that because the government is not supposed to be just for one religion. It's for everyone.

I meant that I don't know enough about commerce laws and the rationale that allows them to prohibit discrimination. As far as I can tell, though, the bakery is guilty of discrimination. I see no reason to disagree with the courts ruling. Churches are exempt from this kind of thing because they are not businesses. They may conduct services, but those aren't done for profit and the church is tax exempt.

Churches engage in commercial activity. Churches have things like bake sales, book and tape sales, etc. There are also ministers who perform weddings for profit.

Some homosexual activist groups are saying that when the church opens up its facilities it is engaging in commerce and becomes subject to anti-discrimination laws.

At this point, I don't see how anything like this is relevant. What point are you trying to make about atheists by pointing out gay activists trying to get religious folk to do something?

Personally, I don't care about these kinds of things enough to get up in arms about them or even follow them very closely. If I hear that some business is discriminating against people, then I wouldn't shop there. I don't really care if that discrimination is punished by the government or not.

It's generally the victims who are more concerned.

That's fine. You asked my opinion and now you have it.

How does that particular case apply to what I said? The cheerleaders are continuing to fight the ruling, so the FFRF is going to be there on the other side. And the ruling that allows for the continued presence of the banners doesn't do anything to guarantee other verses won't be excluded.

The cheerleaders won their case. And they made it clear that they wouldn't protest other cheerleaders placing quranic, or any other religious verses on signs either. There's no reason for the FFRF to go after them anymore.

Like I said, the court decision didn't make it clear that other religions could be included. The cheerleaders are saying they should be, which is nice of them, but it doesn't mean they actually could be. I still don't see how this applies to what I mentioned before about the FFRF backing off once inclusion was clear.

Did I say I thought bigotry didn't exist among atheists? No? Then why are you asking such a ridiculous question? Please address my point: less religion = less irrationality. I've seen nothing from you that disputes that.

What do you base that point on?

To many Christians and myself, less religion = less human instigated rules and regulations, and more of the following of God's guidance . This was also the original theme the founding fathers of the U.S. promoted.

To you, less religion = less of the following of God's guidance. Right? Or am I wrong?

To me, less religion means fewer people getting a fresh injection of irrationality from the pulpit each week. And I'm confident that folks who are left to find out for themselves what their god wants, rather than hear it second hand, will act more based on reality than fantasy.

You've thrown around the term exclusion, which usually seemed to reference the exclusion of other religions. This is obviously not the type of exclusion we're talking about here. The atheists are probably not concerned about the Buddhist or Hindu being excluded (that's for the Buddhist and Hindu to worry about), but they themselves. They feel that because they don't believe in God and/or Jesus Christ they are somehow excluded from the national unifying sentiment of the incident. How much of that is true I don't know. I imagine that there is truth to it, but it's a rather unusual case to make to have a monument taken down. They have to be particularly sensitive.There are many things that cause people to feel excluded. TV commercials are a good example. They target a particular group, and at the same time can cause a feeling of exclusion to others, leaving people to feel offended. But, it's nonsense to assume anything that offends the hypersensitive have to be removed.

They cite all non-Christian Americans in the suit (part 46 on page 10). Atheists may have brought the suit, but they aren't doing it just for themselves. The cross is exclusionary to non-Christians. Your TV commercial analogy isn't remotely relevant because that's private property rather than public land. It's the difference between feeling excluded by a company and feeling excluded by your government. The two aren't comparable.

The case the atheists are making is meant to include all non-Christians, but what the atheist plaintiffs are claiming is causing them depression is obviously very personal. Thus the comment "As a direct and proximate result of the unconstitutional existence of the cross...."

And yes, commercials are a relevant analogy because law suits are made against the stations and networks who run ads and TV shows considered offensive (usually involving racism). Just because something on public land offends a certain party doesn't make any demand of removal a necessity. There appears to be some who think the Statue Of Liberty should be removed for similar reasons. Some of these references may be in jest, but religion is not the only issue that makes it to the court stands.

What context did you think was applied (by me or anyone else)? I wasn't suggesting that the sight of a vertical line and a horizontal line intersecting somehow causes offense, anymore than the 2 zig zag lines intersecting in the nazi symbol causes offense.

Sorry, I got that impression because you appeared to be saying that future atheists might go after private displays. The only reason I could infer for that from your argument was that atheists are somehow sickened by religious displays in general. My mistake. The point is, atheists don't go after private displays. We go after displays on public land that appear to be exclusionary. We go after displays that appear to violate the first amendment. And we do that because the government is not supposed to be just for one religion. It's for everyone.

I don't think atheists are sickened by a cross the same why someone might be sickened by a very ugly statue deemed visually disgusting (maybe something pornographic for instance). In the latter example, symbolism isn't necessarily relevant so much as it's visual presence. It's what the cross symbolizes to them that seems to be the issue.

Churches engage in commercial activity. Churches have things like bake sales, book and tape sales, etc. There are also ministers who perform weddings for profit.

Some homosexual activist groups are saying that when the church opens up its facilities it is engaging in commerce and becomes subject to anti-discrimination laws.

Isn't one of the claims of religious evil made by atheist activists that Christians (or religious folk) are discriminating against gay people using gay marriage as an example? Whenever I ask for examples of religious evil (it's interference in society), gay marriage always seems to be on the list.

It's generally the victims who are more concerned.

That's fine. You asked my opinion and now you have it.

I understand. But just like I said, atheists (let's include agnostics) do not all think alike. What you might not give a lot of attention to, another atheist, or atheist activist might. You may even one day think atheist activists have gone too far. And this is something I don't think atheists and agnostics consider. You use the term we (assuming you mean we atheists) as if you all do think alike, and every case against Christianity (or religion) is just going to run smoothly, because you all think in some sort of just humanitarian unison.

The cheerleaders won their case. And they made it clear that they wouldn't protest other cheerleaders placing quranic, or any other religious verses on signs either. There's no reason for the FFRF to go after them anymore.

Like I said, the court decision didn't make it clear that other religions could be included. The cheerleaders are saying they should be, which is nice of them, but it doesn't mean they actually could be. I still don't see how this applies to what I mentioned before about the FFRF backing off once inclusion was clear.

The case that the FFRF is making is that placing bible scripture on high school cheerleader signs is proselytizing. What makes you think they would back down from that by any claims of inclusion of other religions?

What do you base that point on?

To many Christians and myself, less religion = less human instigated rules and regulations, and more of the following of God's guidance . This was also the original theme the founding fathers of the U.S. promoted.

To you, less religion = less of the following of God's guidance. Right? Or am I wrong?

To me, less religion means fewer people getting a fresh injection of irrationality from the pulpit each week. And I'm confident that folks who are left to find out for themselves what their god wants, rather than hear it second hand, will act more based on reality than fantasy.

You seem to be making certain assumptions here. It seems you're implying that individuals can only hear from God ("And I'm confident that folks who are left to find out for themselves what their god wants") is if they are outside of a church. That God can't, or won't communicate what He wants for an individual from someone speaking in a pulpit. However, apparently you're an atheist, so something isn't quite meshing here.

At 11/16/2014 3:27:20 PM, Burzmali wrote:They cite all non-Christian Americans in the suit (part 46 on page 10). Atheists may have brought the suit, but they aren't doing it just for themselves. The cross is exclusionary to non-Christians. Your TV commercial analogy isn't remotely relevant because that's private property rather than public land. It's the difference between feeling excluded by a company and feeling excluded by your government. The two aren't comparable.

The case the atheists are making is meant to include all non-Christians, but what the atheist plaintiffs are claiming is causing them depression is obviously very personal. Thus the comment "As a direct and proximate result of the unconstitutional existence of the cross...."

Okay. So what's the point that you're trying to get at?

And yes, commercials are a relevant analogy because law suits are made against the stations and networks who run ads and TV shows considered offensive (usually involving racism). Just because something on public land offends a certain party doesn't make any demand of removal a necessity. There appears to be some who think the Statue Of Liberty should be removed for similar reasons. Some of these references may be in jest, but religion is not the only issue that makes it to the court stands.

I'm aware of boycotts over offensive ads, but never a legitimate (i.e. not frivolous) lawsuit. Have any examples you can link to?

And the issue with religious icons on public land is not one of offense specifically at religion. It's about the first amendment specifying that government can't promote one religion over another. Allowing Christian monuments over others is a violation of that, unless the monument is specifically of historic or artistic value.

Sorry, I got that impression because you appeared to be saying that future atheists might go after private displays. The only reason I could infer for that from your argument was that atheists are somehow sickened by religious displays in general. My mistake. The point is, atheists don't go after private displays. We go after displays on public land that appear to be exclusionary. We go after displays that appear to violate the first amendment. And we do that because the government is not supposed to be just for one religion. It's for everyone.

I don't think atheists are sickened by a cross the same why someone might be sickened by a very ugly statue deemed visually disgusting (maybe something pornographic for instance). In the latter example, symbolism isn't necessarily relevant so much as it's visual presence. It's what the cross symbolizes to them that seems to be the issue.

It's what the presence of the cross, in the absence of any other indication of inclusion, on public land symbolizes: government endorsement of Christianity or government exclusion of non-Christians.

I think the activists are wrong.

If a church refuses to marry a gay couple, is that discrimination?

Yes, but it doesn't appear to be a violation of anti-discrimination laws.

Do you disagree with the judges ruling in this case?

The judge didn't rule on the case. He said that no one had actually brought a suit forward, so there was no reason to rule on the law itself. I have no reason to disagree with that.

Isn't one of the claims of religious evil made by atheist activists that Christians (or religious folk) are discriminating against gay people using gay marriage as an example? Whenever I ask for examples of religious evil (it's interference in society), gay marriage always seems to be on the list.

I still don't see the relevance with regard to what you think future atheists are going to do.

That's fine. You asked my opinion and now you have it.

I understand. But just like I said, atheists (let's include agnostics) do not all think alike. What you might not give a lot of attention to, another atheist, or atheist activist might. You may even one day think atheist activists have gone too far. And this is something I don't think atheists and agnostics consider. You use the term we (assuming you mean we atheists) as if you all do think alike, and every case against Christianity (or religion) is just going to run smoothly, because you all think in some sort of just humanitarian unison.

Can you name a single instance of atheists suing, in a non-frivolous way, to remove a private religious display? That seems to be what you're really getting at, that some crazy atheists in the future will want to ban everything related to religion everywhere. Do you have any actual reason to believe this?

Like I said, the court decision didn't make it clear that other religions could be included. The cheerleaders are saying they should be, which is nice of them, but it doesn't mean they actually could be. I still don't see how this applies to what I mentioned before about the FFRF backing off once inclusion was clear.

The case that the FFRF is making is that placing bible scripture on high school cheerleader signs is proselytizing. What makes you think they would back down from that by any claims of inclusion of other religions?

Because that's what they've done in the past. Do you have any examples of them not backing down once a court decides that everyone can be included on something?

To me, less religion means fewer people getting a fresh injection of irrationality from the pulpit each week. And I'm confident that folks who are left to find out for themselves what their god wants, rather than hear it second hand, will act more based on reality than fantasy.

You seem to be making certain assumptions here. It seems you're implying that individuals can only hear from God ("And I'm confident that folks who are left to find out for themselves what their god wants") is if they are outside of a church. That God can't, or won't communicate what He wants for an individual from someone speaking in a pulpit. However, apparently you're an atheist, so something isn't quite meshing here.

A complete answer would take more room than I have. Suffice it to say, I don't think anyone actually hears from any gods. I think most believers get their god ideas from authority figures, and thereby cede their evaluation of certain things (origins of the universe and life, opinions of "others," etc) to that authority. So less religion should leave more people in a position to have to think (hopefully) rationally for themselves. For instance, a some pro-gay rights Christians think that their god doesn't actually have an opinion about homosexuality. Without a preacher or book telling them otherwise, I think most theists would feel that way.

Anyway, this part seems pretty off topic (sorry for starting this train). I'm happy to let you have the last comment on it.